Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (9237)	3/13/2009 2:01:58 PM
From: JakeStraw	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

You seem worried Kenneth... Why is that? Could it be that people are finally seeing Obama for what he really is. Not everyone acts like a fawning little schoolgirl with a crush on Obama like you do Kenneth.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (9237)	3/13/2009 2:05:40 PM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (9237)	3/13/2009 4:24:29 PM
From: pompsander	1 Recommendation Respond to of 103300

Steele's Stumbles 12 Mar 2009 05:46 pm I think Marc's analysis - both of where Michael Steele has gone wrong, and what he needs to do to right himself - has things just about right. The tragedy of Steele's RNC chairmanship to date is that he's been lousy at precisely the thing he was supposed to be good at - namely, giving the Republican Party a successful public-relations makeover - without demonstrating any obvious aptitude for the things (organization, etc.) that various Republicans worried he wouldn't be successful at. As one of Marc's sources notes, his desire to charm has been his undoing: He's been just as "comfortable with the media," in a sense, as his boosters hoped he would be, but there turns out to be a difference between being "comfortable" talking about the Republican Party on television and being good at it. If I may overgeneralize a bit (and in a self-serving way) from an extremely small sample size, I think Steele's stumbles, while different in form from Sarah Palin's unsuccessful broadcast-network interviews (he's said too much; she didn't say enough ... and was tongue-tied doing it), reflect a similar underlying difficulty - the attempt to brazen through an intellectual vacuum with charisma alone. Both Steele and Palin are extremely charismatic, as American politicians go, which is a big reason why Republicans of different stripes - moderates for the Marylander, conservatives for the Alaskan - have been so excited about them. But they've both attempted (or been asked) to chart a new direction for the Right on style alone, and they've floundered as soon as they've been pressed for substance. Steele has responded by telling his interlocutors whatever they want to hear, Palin responded by telling her interlocutors next to nothing at all - and the results, in both cases, are and were unfortunate. The point here, to return to an earlier theme, isn't that a brilliant rat-a-tat-tat of bright policy ideas from either Steele or Palin's lips would suddenly convert an audience of fence-sitting voters to rock-ribbed conservatism. It's that given conservatism's current straits, having something intelligent and fresh-sounding to say about how your political persuasion bears on the great issues of the day ought to be a baseline for rising right-of-center politicians. Insufficient, yes, but necessary all the same - not least because if you haven't figured out something smart-sounding to say in advance, all the charisma in the world won't save you from saying something foolish. rossdouthat.theatlantic.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (9237)	3/13/2009 6:47:38 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 103300

"Rasmussen has always been a Republican leaning pollster." What makes you say something like that? Was it because they were the only national pollster to --- just one week prior to the election --- predict a WIN for John McCain?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (9237)	3/14/2009 8:26:53 PM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

March 14, 2009 Editorial nyt $100 Billion the Country Could Use Senate investigators estimate that Americans who hide assets in offshore bank accounts are failing to pay about $100 billion a year in taxes. In good times, that’s grossly unfair and bad for the country. In times like these, it should be intolerable. The government not only needs the money, but closing down such tax scams is essential for President Obama’s rescue effort to retain public support and credibility. Some of the banks at the center of the global financial meltdown are prominent purveyors of evasion services. UBS of Switzerland has acknowledged that as of Sept. 30, it held about 47,000 secret accounts for Americans. It has refused to disclose the names of all but a tiny number of the account holders, arguing that it would be a breach of Swiss law. But last month — after UBS got caught soliciting business in the United States — it admitted to breaking federal law by helping Americans hide assets, and the bank agreed to pay $780 million in fines and restitution. The United States Treasury isn’t the only one being shorted. The Tax Justice Network, a research and advocacy organization, estimates $11.5 trillion in assets from around the world are hidden in offshore havens. The United States also isn’t the only country running out of patience. In February, European leaders forged an unusually tough and united call to put the problem of “uncooperative jurisdictions” near the top of the agenda for the April summit of leading economies in London. (Finance ministers will discuss the issue at a preparatory meeting in London this weekend.) Bankers and their host countries are feeling the heat. In recent days, a rash of governments, including Andorra, Liechtenstein, Singapore and Hong Kong have said they would increase the transparency of their offshore banking business and share more information with tax authorities in depositors’ home countries. Even the Swiss government has caved — somewhat. On Friday, it announced that it would exchange information with tax authorities in other countries on the basis of “specific and justified” requests, though it resolutely rejected “any form of automatic exchange of information.” Meanwhile, UBS promised to close its secret American accounts and not open any more. The United States is taking UBS to court to try to get the bank to reveal the identities of thousands of accounts. The government needs more tools to crack down on such international tax evasion. The Internal Revenue Service relies on taxpayers to disclose any foreign bank accounts, and it has no means to routinely get that information from banks in jurisdictions that protect secrecy. Senator Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is considering legislation that would require banks to inform the I.R.S. when their clients wire money abroad. Senator Carl Levin has introduced a bill that, among other provisions, would allow the United States to bar banks in this country from doing business with foreign banks that refused to cooperate with American tax authorities. This problem can’t be fixed solely by American law. At the London summit, American officials should work with other governments to come up with a common set of rules to pry information from tax havens. There are a variety of ideas worth serious consideration. Governments could revoke tax treaties with countries that refuse to cooperate with tax queries — making it much more cumbersome for their companies to do international business. They could restrict their own banks from doing business with banks in uncooperative countries or subject any business with these countries to higher standards of disclosure. They could start now by publishing blacklists of countries and banks that refuse to cooperate with requests for information from fiscal authorities. A few years ago, most banks and tax havens would have shrugged off such an effort. But in the current environment, they seem to be more sensitive to public shaming.